596
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] III@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Real talk, he hasn't been proven to exist. Not even a little.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

And as you read through you will notice a heavy bias towards the assumption he did exist...but again, without proof. It's kind of silly the lie he was real is so prevalent.

Each attempt to prove his existence relied on very loose reasoning. The closest they have ever come breaks down to one actual historical figure who wasn't a Christian mentioning some thieves who believed in Jesus numerous decades after Jesus supposedly died - which for a long time was proof enough...somehow.

At this point scholars have admitted they will never have actual proof that he existed - that proof is "ultimately unattainable". And much like you noted with "political impact" they have moved the goal posts to the impact on society the concept of Jesus had as their proof. So... yeah, definitely not proven.

[-] elDalvini@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 9 months ago

What did you expect? We're talking about one guy who might have lived over 2000 years ago. You're not going to find his birth certificate and social security number.

The best anyone can do is assign a probability to his existence. And reading the article you yourself linked to, that probability seems to be pretty high.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

I expect Paul to be able to say literally anything about the guy. Which he can't seem to do. It is called the Silence of Paul problem.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

The best anyone can do is assign a probability to his existence

For a person that is considered an actual god, we should expect more than “probable” existence. I think pointing out the lack of evidence for a supposed god is perfectly acceptable.

[-] Gaspar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 9 months ago

You're missing the point or you're being deliberately obtuse. Either way, nobody's trying to prove that Jesus Christ existed in this thread (at least, nobody that is arguing in good faith - no pun intended). We're talking about the real guy that MOST LIKELY really existed but, putting aside his supposed divine heritage, would have been basically a regular guy back then.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago

A regular guy who created three different movements in under 3 years, convinced multiple people to abandon their families and income for life with no power beyond words, who managed to somehow someway have the entire legal system in place not work properly, and was able to convince Pilot to not do the sensible thing which would be wipe out his followers.

Could you pull this off? With no money and influence could you go to say Mississippi, convince 12 men to abandon their wives/children/income, lead them on a suicide run, somehow manipulate the justice system to not give you a regular trial, yet shield all of your followers for decades after your death, and inspire two separate movements after you are dead...in under 3 years.

If a regular guy has this level of charisma I would be pretty impressed.

[-] fkn@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

This happens regularly... They are called cults today... Their members also believe their Messiah is a messenger from (or literally is) god... And they get much more than 12.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago
[-] fkn@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Jim Jones started his church in 1954 and had enough followers to buy his own church building by 1955.

I don't know the exact timeline on it but his faith healing garbage was a conscious effort to engender faith in his teachings and has been written about as being effective in less than a year.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Sorry. Did he die 6 months after he started his church? I didn't ask if he had enough money to buy a building, tax free at the absurd cost of owning a building in the 50s. Really people making minimum wage could afford a house back then.

Worth mentioning that he ran the church for another 24 years and now it is gone. The historical Jesus claim is that he started the church, got people to join, six months later they were willing to do a suicide attack, and 20 centuries later they are still around.

You are welcome to back off on this. You are not going to find a single time in history, of the thousands of documented religions, where this happened.

Founder, suicidal cult, dead, and still around all in the span of half a year.

Occum's razor. Every other religion that had any success had a founder who spent multiple decades keep it going building up the institutions needed. So what is more likely that Christianity is the one odd one out of thousands or it is the same? James was running a mystery cult centered around a fictional heavenly figure.

[-] fkn@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Look. You need to stop moving the goalposts. The post I replied to was about "could a person be charismatic enough to gain 12 followers." The answer is yes.

Could a person do it in a short period of time? Yes.

Why do you insist on being insufferable?

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

12 followers in six months and they continue the work after he died.

Look, I apologize if I didn't communicate properly you can believe me or not but I did have that in mind when I wrote it.

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 6 points 9 months ago

For a person that is considered an actual god

That came later, first council of nicaea was where the thing with holy trinity was made.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

How Jesus Became God covers that process. Early Christianity was very complicated and divergent. Some groups thought Jesus was just a guy, others that he was just a guy who was raised to divinity, and still others that he was divine from the start. And then even among those who thought he had some sort of divinity, not all of them agreed with the trinity idea. And then Gnositcs come along and have a whole different cosmology about everything.

The Council of Nicaea didn't come up with anything on its own. It was an official stamp on what set of existing ideas were considered orthodox or not.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Literally everything about Jesus came later, though.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 21 points 9 months ago

We have two sources for Spartacus: Plutarch of Chaeronea and Appian of Alexandria. Both were written a century after he died. The two accounts mostly agree, but in the middle of the story they go completely different directions and then meet up again for the ending.

Spartacus is generally regarded as existing. We don't know which account had it right, and it's possible neither of them are. We will probably never know.

Point is, if you're not a ruler, then historical evidence of your existence tends to be thin. Jesus likely existed, and we have better evidence for him than Spartacus.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago

Very well. Show me the contemporary evidence of Jesus existing

[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Might not be intentional lie. Take for example how we today call government "Uncle Sam". It's not hard to imagine made up person back in the day used for similar purposes so records survived but there's no physical evidence. We do it all the time, witches, santa claus, boogeyman, etc.

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de -3 points 9 months ago

Note how the article uses the word "scholars" as opposed to scientists. Scientists would simply state that there is no actual evidence about the existence of this guy so this is all speculation.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 9 months ago

Then you have to do the same for a huge number of other historical figures. You end up with history being a huge blank beyond people who were rulers. That's not useful, and not necessary.

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago

What historical figures do you have in mind? The difference between a historical and a mythical person is the evidence available for their existence. History (the scientific kind) has a pretty clear idea which is which.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 9 months ago

I'll copy my writeup from elsewhere in the thread.


We have two sources for Spartacus: Plutarch of Chaeronea and Appian of Alexandria. Both were written a century after he died. The two accounts mostly agree, but in the middle of the story they go completely different directions and then meet up again for the ending.

Spartacus is generally regarded as existing. We don’t know which account had it right, and it’s possible neither of them are. We will probably never know.

Point is, if you’re not a ruler, then historical evidence of your existence tends to be thin. Jesus likely existed, and we have better evidence for him than Spartacus.

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago

Spartacus is generally regarded as existing

That's the whole point. We assume the guy existed but there's no proof.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 9 months ago

So you're going to deny the existence of Spartacus? Really?

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago

When did I say that? I said there's no definitive proof. That's not denying the possibility that the guy actually existed. But as you said, the evidence is rather thin.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 9 months ago

We can say he was from Thrace, that he was captured as a slave and fought as a gladiator in Capua, he led a slave revolt, and ran the Roman Army ragged all over the Italian peninsula. Including armies led by Marcus Crassus and Julius Caesar.

We can say that Jesus was from Nazareth, he started a weird little apocalyptic group within Judaism when he was around 30 years old, was baptized by a guy who started a parallel apocalyptic group (there were a lot of these guys running around Israel at the time), and he was crucified by the Romans. He almost certainly wasn't trying to start a whole new religion separate from Judaism; that came later, likely with Paul.

And that's it, that's the claim. Nobody is asking you to believe in the superstitious aspects, just the completely mundane claim that Christianity likely has a singular individual that inspired the movement.

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago

just the completely mundane claim that Christianity likely has a singular individual that inspired the movement.

Sure, there's a real possibility that this was the case. I'm not in any way denying that, just pointing out that there's no way to be sure.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

We can say that Jesus was from Nazareth,

Prove it.

was baptized by a guy

Which Paul doesnt mention for no reason whatsoever despite it being really good for his case.

and he was crucified by the Romans.

Hung or nailed? Which.

this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
596 points (86.1% liked)

Atheist Memes

5586 readers
2 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS